The disappearing island

Quote from: magellanclavichord on May 11, 2019, 02:22:28 PM

Hmmm. Okay. So maybe I need to figure out the reason for myself. I didn't realize that Rowbotham was the originator of FET. I'll give it some thought. Maybe FET needs a more scientifically-minded proponent.

As far as I’m aware most of the modern flat earth ideas were his- The polar azimuthal projection map, with a “spotlight” sun and moon circling above us between the tropics, Antarctic ice wall, etc.

Obviously there are variations on these ideas, but it seems to be the basis of most of what we hear now.  I could be wrong if anyone wants to correct me?

So it’s worth checking out his stuff, if only to see the origins of it all.

Of course being a round earther, I’d advise you to be extremely sceptical about it all.  But, you know “do your own research” and all that.

I'm more of a theoretical thinker than a hands-on researcher. Research equipment is expensive, and I'm kind of a klutz so any measurements I made would be unreliable. I don't like the cold, so I'm not going to go looking for the ice wall. And while "doing your own research" might work for some, the results of research are only as good as the skill of the researcher. I have more confidence in my brain than in my hands.

In the spirit of throw everything on the wall and see what sticks, I'm going to try out phlogiston. It turns out not to be the thing that makes things burn, so it probably repels heat, and light is related to heat. Light carries heat from the sun to the Earth, and there has to be a lot pf phlogiston in sea water because eventually everything gets washed down to the sea. So the phlogiston in sea water pushes light away from the ocean, which creates the same optical appearance at the horizon as if the sea were convex.

What do my fellow FE folks think of this explanation for the horizon problem?

Quote from: Unconvinced on May 11, 2019, 05:20:56 PM

Quote from: magellanclavichord on May 11, 2019, 02:22:28 PM

Hmmm. Okay. So maybe I need to figure out the reason for myself. I didn't realize that Rowbotham was the originator of FET. I'll give it some thought. Maybe FET needs a more scientifically-minded proponent.

As far as I’m aware most of the modern flat earth ideas were his- The polar azimuthal projection map, with a “spotlight” sun and moon circling above us between the tropics, Antarctic ice wall, etc.

Obviously there are variations on these ideas, but it seems to be the basis of most of what we hear now.  I could be wrong if anyone wants to correct me?

So it’s worth checking out his stuff, if only to see the origins of it all.

Of course being a round earther, I’d advise you to be extremely sceptical about it all.  But, you know “do your own research” and all that.

I'm more of a theoretical thinker than a hands-on researcher. Research equipment is expensive, and I'm kind of a klutz so any measurements I made would be unreliable. I don't like the cold, so I'm not going to go looking for the ice wall. And while "doing your own research" might work for some, the results of research are only as good as the skill of the researcher. I have more confidence in my brain than in my hands.

I more meant internet research.  Specifically, where these ideas came from and are they credible?

Of course you could do some basic measurements with cheap equipment if you don’t trust what others say if you want.

Quote from: magellanclavichord on May 11, 2019, 07:04:57 PM

Quote from: Unconvinced on May 11, 2019, 05:20:56 PM

Quote from: magellanclavichord on May 11, 2019, 02:22:28 PM

Hmmm. Okay. So maybe I need to figure out the reason for myself. I didn't realize that Rowbotham was the originator of FET. I'll give it some thought. Maybe FET needs a more scientifically-minded proponent.

As far as I’m aware most of the modern flat earth ideas were his- The polar azimuthal projection map, with a “spotlight” sun and moon circling above us between the tropics, Antarctic ice wall, etc.

Obviously there are variations on these ideas, but it seems to be the basis of most of what we hear now.  I could be wrong if anyone wants to correct me?

So it’s worth checking out his stuff, if only to see the origins of it all.

Of course being a round earther, I’d advise you to be extremely sceptical about it all.  But, you know “do your own research” and all that.

I'm more of a theoretical thinker than a hands-on researcher. Research equipment is expensive, and I'm kind of a klutz so any measurements I made would be unreliable. I don't like the cold, so I'm not going to go looking for the ice wall. And while "doing your own research" might work for some, the results of research are only as good as the skill of the researcher. I have more confidence in my brain than in my hands.

I more meant internet research.  Specifically, where these ideas came from and are they credible?

Of course you could do some basic measurements with cheap equipment if you don’t trust what others say if you want.

Isn't "internet research" an oxymoron?

Isn't "internet research" an oxymoron?

Not necessarily, e.g. with Google.scholar and optionally the Unpaywall browser plugin you can get access to huge amount of material, including peer-reviewed scientific journal articles. There you can dig deeper and deeper and also check for plausibility by reading the methods and references (forward and backward). I agree, that there are also wrong statements in between, since humans are not omniscient. But I would say as a large group, in average, we got already in many scientific topics very close to the truth.

Just read the fucking books man.

The Kama Sutra?  The Joy of Sex?

I'm not entirely sure these cover flat earth theories on perspective, but I will give them a go.

Quote from: John Davis on May 07, 2019, 09:54:55 PM

Just read the fucking books man.

The Kama Sutra?  The Joy of Sex?

I'm not entirely sure these cover flat earth theories on perspective, but I will give them a go.

The Kama Sutra, properly understood, will most definitely point to the flatness of the Earth. But it does not offer a specific explanation for my disappearing island. I think we need phlogiston for that.

The variables:
1. Higher sea level over there.
2. Universal Acceleration.

Both factors give such sight. The lowest part of an object will be the first to get covered by the earth's surface, either sea or land.

Universal Acceleration has a serious flaw: assuming the universe is more than one year old, we would be traveling up at over 99% of the speed of light, and with increasing energy. Anything "out there" in the space we are traveling into would hit the surface of the Earth with so much energy that the tiniest bit of dust would have the energy of billions of hydrogen bombs.

Furthermore, UA would not cause the bottom of an island to disappear first.

Higher sea level over there would cause the bottom to disappear first, and I thought of this already. But we know that cannot be the case because the Earth is not round. It is flat. And water always finds its level (not counting waves, which are constantly moving.

Why should the speed of light get related to a moving body. Both are independent to each other.

Even though the water will find its level, the sea level can be higher due to the breathing earth as well as feed back waves from islands.

Surfing sea level is an instance. The continual force as mentioned above will maintain the higher sea level.

Oh no, don't make boydster explain how the speed of light works again! lol

Why should the speed of light get related to a moving body.

Because something that's moving has speed! And because the faster a thing is moving the more momentum and energy it has. And something that's accelerating is constantly increasing its momentum and energy. And if the Earth is accelerating at 1G and has been doing so for billions of years, or even just 6,000 years as some say, the collision energy with even just a speck of dust would completely obliterate it.

I apologize for bring up the speed of light. You are correct that it's irrelevant. What matters is that thousands of years of acceleration at 1G would mean it is going so fast now that it could not survive an impact.

And this matters because gravity is a much simpler explanation. We don't need UA in order to explain anything. And gravity works just fine for a flat Earth. Accepting gravity does not mean the Earth is round. It just means we don't need a preposterous explanation like UA. UA creates more problems than it solves, whereas gravity is much more sensible. It's just not pointing to the "center" of anything: It's pointing perpendicular to the surface.

Even though the water will find its level, the sea level can be higher due to the breathing earth as well as feed back waves from islands.

But those things create moving waves. And to explain the disappearing island you'd need a wave that's always in the same place. A very very big wave that's always in the same place. Phlogiston is still the better explanation. Rowbotham got the shape right but the explanation wrong.

Universal Acceleration has a serious flaw: assuming the universe is more than one year old, we would be traveling up at over 99% of the speed of light

What, exactly, is that speed relative to?

and with increasing energy. Anything "out there" in the space we are traveling into would hit the surface of the Earth with so much energy that the tiniest bit of dust would have the energy of billions of hydrogen bombs.

That's really where the "U" in UA comes in handy, I suppose, right?

Furthermore, UA would not cause the bottom of an island to disappear first.

At least we can agree here.

Yeah UA is something important to explore because it potentially convey remedy in physics.

So called 'flaw' in UA is needed to be clarified.

Gravity is being severely critisized even by conventional physicist such as Prof. Michio Kaku.

Test it with your own feet. Is there indication of 'magnet'?
I don't think so.
Gravity is just an assumption for hundreds of years. Scientists admit it.

So far I don't see better explanation than UA for 'gravity phenomenon'.

It takes a machinary mechanism to manifest UA.
Also a container of the universe that has unimaginable size.

FE universe is much much larger than modern physics' universe.

The earth's velocity of 1 trillion kps might be too small. It must be much much faster than that.
God's technology is beyond imagination.

It takes a machinary mechanism to manifest UA.

Says who? Why and how would you know?

Also a container of the universe that has unimaginable size.

Why? Why is there a container let alone of a size that I somehow could not imagine?

FE universe is much much larger than modern physics' universe.

How would you know? What would this notion be based on?

The earth's velocity of 1 trillion kps might be too small. It must be much much faster than that.
God's technology is beyond imagination.

How would you know that god's technology is beyond imagination if it's beyond imagination? You couldn't imagine its limits so you wouldn't know what the limits are. Ergo, whether god's technology is beyond our imagination or not is actually unknowable. Kind of a conundrum, as it were.

All of which doesn't answer the question the OP had: What is the FE explanation for what I observed?

Response to @Stash

a. It takes the continual acceleration upwards for the flying earth to mantain the 1g acceleration. No static  natural mechanism can do the job.

So the energy should be added over time.
There is energy management, it takes a machinery to manifest it.

b. There is kind of air/fog in this container to make the earth fly by velocity horizontally, and by acceleration vertically.

c. Velocity by modern science vs acceleration by FE science. Who wins?

d. My imagination is based on my current knowledge. The reality is more than my imaginarion.

"All of which doesn't answer the question the OP had: What is the FE explanation for what I observed?"

>> To me both UA & higher sea level have answered the question.

You can compare a swimming pool level with huge swimming pool AKA Sea or Ocean.
The average sea level due to waves give significant higher level of the sea.

UA gives air strikes upwards against the sunray from distant objects.
The observers need to go to higher position to see the bottom part of the object, or, move closer to the object. Because the ray from the object is blocked by the ascending earth at the position between observer and the object.

"What matters is that thousands of years of acceleration at 1G would mean it is going so fast now that it could not survive an impact."

>> That means there have been soliditation mechanism of the earth system, especially the dome. It surely amazing technology.
But if this survival mechanism will be broken someday, that means the end of the universe has come.

Quote from: magellanclavichord on May 15, 2019, 08:36:01 AM

Universal Acceleration has a serious flaw: assuming the universe is more than one year old, we would be traveling up at over 99% of the speed of light

What, exactly, is that speed relative to?

Quote

and with increasing energy. Anything "out there" in the space we are traveling into would hit the surface of the Earth with so much energy that the tiniest bit of dust would have the energy of billions of hydrogen bombs.

That's really where the "U" in UA comes in handy, I suppose, right?

Quote

Furthermore, UA would not cause the bottom of an island to disappear first.

At least we can agree here.

Speed and acceleration are meaningless unless they are relative to something. But I've already admitted that I was mistaken in suggesting that the speed of light had anything to do with the issues at hand. Whatever it is, and whatever it is relative to, I should have left it out of the discussion because it is irrelevant.

I'm here for this quality discussion on how round earthers don't understand their own physics.

Acceleration is not meaningless if it is not relative to something. You can measure acceleration directly, regardless of your relative speed to anything or your knowledge of this. 

Gravity is being severely critisized even by conventional physicist such as Prof. Michio Kaku.

No. The existence of gravity is not being disputed by any physicists. There are some fringe theories about what causes it, such as string theory, which up to now has failed to to offer a single testable hypothesis. But nobody in conventional physics has any doubts about its reality, or that it is caused by mass.

Test it with your own feet. Is there indication of 'magnet'?

Sorry. I have no idea what you mean by this. Gravity has nothing to do with magnets. Gravity (according to globist physics) causes masses to move toward each other unless an opposing force intervenes. Objects that are heavier than air fall until they are stopped by contact with the ground. This includes my feet, and all the rest of me. There's nothing special about feet because a gymnast can stand on her hands and does not need her feet to be on the ground. Gravity does not care.

UA gives air strikes upwards against the sunray from distant objects.
The observers need to go to higher position to see the bottom part of the object, or, move closer to the object. Because the ray from the object is blocked by the ascending earth at the position between observer and the object.

This actually makes sense. I need to think about it for a while.

Quote from: Danang on May 16, 2019, 03:09:50 AM

UA gives air strikes upwards against the sunray from distant objects.
The observers need to go to higher position to see the bottom part of the object, or, move closer to the object. Because the ray from the object is blocked by the ascending earth at the position between observer and the object.

This actually makes sense. I need to think about it for a while.

Narrator: It didn't.

Aside from this, it is your contention that main stream "round earth" physics views gravity as a force? And that no scientist says it 'doesn't exist?'

Aside from this, it is your contention that mainstream "round earth" physics views gravity as a force? And that no scientist says it 'doesn't exist?'

Make that  "physics views gravity as causing a force" and it might be closer.

If you want to know how "mainstream 'round earth' physics views gravity" maybe Ask an Astronomer If gravity isn't a force, how does it accelerate objects?

After all, astronomers are the ones claiming to know a bit about gravity and even about the "celestial race with giant balls of mud being flung about in circles" .

Quote from: magellanclavichord on May 16, 2019, 09:32:30 AM

Quote from: Danang on May 16, 2019, 03:09:50 AM

UA gives air strikes upwards against the sunray from distant objects.
The observers need to go to higher position to see the bottom part of the object, or, move closer to the object. Because the ray from the object is blocked by the ascending earth at the position between observer and the object.

This actually makes sense. I need to think about it for a while.

Narrator: It didn't.

Aside from this, it is your contention that main stream "round earth" physics views gravity as a force? And that no scientist says it 'doesn't exist?'

Just as light can be regarded as either a wave or a particle, so gravity can be regarded as either a force or a distortion in space-time. Newton regarded it as a force acting at a distance, and astronomers use Newtonian gravity for many of their calculations because the math is a lot easier and is good enough. Einstein regarded gravity as the observed effect of the curvature of space-time, and for some calculations his more difficult math must be employed because the errors in the Newtonian calculations are too large to be ignored.

Gravitational waves, predicted by Einstein and detected by LIGO, are one more confirmation that gravity is real. But if I understand correctly, gravity is not a force but in our frame of reference it causes objects to move as though they were being acted on by a force.

What's important for the point I wanted to make is that gravity is what keeps the Earth's atmosphere from wandering off into space, and therefore it is not necessary to posit a dome. The moon landings demonstrate that if there is a dome it's outside the orbit of the moon. Or else there's a door in it. I cannot believe that God would have created a dome to keep the atmosphere in, and then installed a door so rocket ships could go to the moon. (The contention that the moon landings were faked is untenable. They were undoubtedly real. And astronauts are pretty cool people, though not as cool as firefighters.)

Quote from: John Davis on May 16, 2019, 09:35:13 AM

Aside from this, it is your contention that mainstream "round earth" physics views gravity as a force? And that no scientist says it 'doesn't exist?'

Make that  "physics views gravity as causing a force" and it might be closer.

If you want to know how "mainstream 'round earth' physics views gravity" maybe Ask an Astronomer If gravity isn't a force, how does it accelerate objects?

After all, astronomers are the ones claiming to know a bit about gravity and even about the "celestial race with giant balls of mud being flung about in circles" .

Might be closer to what? I'm asking him what his contention is. Not yours, and not a random physicist from Cornell. Not the academic consensus. Him, personally.

I have no will to know what "Ask a astronomer" thinks about it. However, it would be interesting for him to explain what carriers send the message to "space" from energy, how it travels faster than light and backwards in time, and how it talks to a non-existent entity (remember, modern physics holds theres no aether, in spite of Einstein's say on the matter.)

Quote from: John Davis on May 16, 2019, 09:35:13 AM

Quote from: magellanclavichord on May 16, 2019, 09:32:30 AM

Quote from: Danang on May 16, 2019, 03:09:50 AM

UA gives air strikes upwards against the sunray from distant objects.
The observers need to go to higher position to see the bottom part of the object, or, move closer to the object. Because the ray from the object is blocked by the ascending earth at the position between observer and the object.

This actually makes sense. I need to think about it for a while.

Narrator: It didn't.

Aside from this, it is your contention that main stream "round earth" physics views gravity as a force? And that no scientist says it 'doesn't exist?'

Just as light can be regarded as either a wave or a particle, so gravity can be regarded as either a force or a distortion in space-time.

If it is a wave or a particle, surely we have experimental verification of this (the double slit experiment namely). What experimental verification do we have that gravity is a force, or even of its carrier particle?

Newton regarded it as a force acting at a distance, and astronomers use Newtonian gravity for many of their calculations because the math is a lot easier and is good enough. Einstein regarded gravity as the observed effect of the curvature of space-time, and for some calculations his more difficult math must be employed because the errors in the Newtonian calculations are too large to be ignored.

Why then do we find errors when we use Einstein's math? For example, why do some large galaxies rotate at the wrong rate on the rim? Where does this put our understanding of Gravity?

Gravitational waves, predicted by Einstein and detected by LIGO, are one more confirmation that gravity is real. But if I understand correctly, gravity is not a force but in our frame of reference it causes objects to move as though they were being acted on by a force.

I'm not sure I'd actually agree that LIGO detected gravitational waves or that they were predicted by Einstein himself, rather than work coming from his theories (though I could be wrong on both points.) That said, you are right about your understanding of our frame of reference in the context of relativity.

What's important for the point I wanted to make is that gravity is what keeps the Earth's atmosphere from wandering off into space, and therefore it is not necessary to posit a dome. The moon landings demonstrate that if there is a dome it's outside the orbit of the moon. Or else there's a door in it. I cannot believe that God would have created a dome to keep the atmosphere in, and then installed a door so rocket ships could go to the moon. (The contention that the moon landings were faked is untenable. They were undoubtedly real. And astronauts are pretty cool people, though not as cool as firefighters.)

While I don't hold that the moon landings were faked, or am at least undecided, it is certainly not untenable. I'd love to hear why. Also, many astronauts are famous dicks. Buzz Aldrin comes to mind, at least until recently when he's seemed to get his shit together a bit more. I've met my fair share of asshole fire fighters as well, though most seem like pretty okay guys.

I agree that a dome is not necessary due to atmoplanar reasons.

However, many hold its existence for other reasons. Biblical coherency is probably top of the list, and also holds that there is indeed a door; it was opened to cause the floods. However, you'll find virtually all flatists hold the moon landings were faked, and the moon is of a radically different nature than we are told. For example, it is self luminous.

There are other reasons, some better or worse.

Am I incorrect in assuming you are a round earther? Your last paragraph gives my presumption pause.

I have no will to know what "Ask a astronomer" thinks about it. However, it would be interesting for him to explain what carriers send the message to "space" from energy,

Who says that "carriers" are needed unless gravitation is quantised? And in that case why should those "carriers" be vastly different from photons?
Though there would have to be some very significant differences because gravitation affects all matter identically but electromagnetic effects treat various types of matter quite differently.

So, go and ask a particle physicist.

how it travels faster than light and backwards in time,

Who said that it does either of those things?

and how it talks to a non-existent entity

It what?

(remember, modern physics holds theres no aether, in spite of Einstein's say on the matter.)

I think you might find that Einstein's ether is nothing like the the luminiferous aether of Geocentrists.
Have you read what Einstein wrote of ether? Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein
His last paragraph is

Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it.

But what continually amazes me is that Flat Earthers have seem to be
      unable to accept "action at a distance" when it is  mass appearing to attract mass but
      have not problem accepting "action at a distance" when it is a positive charge attracting a negative charge.
Why the big difference?

Is seems to me that Flat Earthers are convinced that Flat Earth Theory is an obvious truth and so all apparently contrary evidence must be false.

@John Davis:

Since I'm using a tablet, it's difficult to format replies with multiple quotes, so I'm just going to reply to your points one by one without the quotes.

You ask what experimental evidence we have that gravity is a force, but I said that it's only in Newton's theory that it is a force. In Einstein's theory it is the curvature of space-time which makes objects move as though they were being acted upon by a force. For most day-to-day stuff, we can use Newton's theory to get results that are so close to accurate that it's impossible to measure the difference. The trajectory of a baseball hit out of the park, for example. Even planetary orbits come out right using Newton's math, except for Mercury, which is close enough to the sun and its strong gravitational field that Einstein's math must be used to obtain accurate predictions because Newton's is measurably off.

Einstein's math does not give wrong answers. It correctly predicts the orbit of Mercury and it correctly predicts the amount that light from a distant star is bent when it passes close to the sun, as observed during a solar eclipse. The rotation of galaxies is accounted for by dark matter.

You don't agree that LIGO detected gravitational waves? The results of those observations are conclusive. Gravitational waves are real. I admit that I do not know if Einstein himself spoke about them or they are merely a conclusion drawn from Relativity theory.

I am guilty of going off topic when I brought up firefighters. Sorry about that. But however much of a jerk the occasional firefighter might be, they run into burning buildings to save people's lives. That makes them pretty cool in my book. Again, sorry for going off topic there.

As for Biblical coherency, I see no reason to look to a compilation of documents written between 3,000 and 2,000 years ago for information regarding the structure of the world. It is quite clear that the writers of those documents did not regard their own references to creation and the structure of the world as anything but allegory and metaphor. It was not until Martin Luther that one branch of Christianity began to regard the Bible as literally true in all respects. The differing creation stories show that this is allegory and not intended to be taken literally. The Bible has a great deal of value in it, but I do not base my flat-Earth belief on it.

And, no, I'm not a round-Earther. But where I differ from many of my fellow flat-Earthers is that I do not believe that scientists are lying to us, or that their experimental results are invalid. And I think it is counter-productive of us to call them liars and conspirators. It is really preposterous to imagine that over the entire plane of the Earth all the world's governments, and all its scientists in all its universities and all its space agencies, and all the disparate news agencies, are all in a massive conspiracy to hide the true shape of the Earth. All conspiracies come to light eventually, and the more people are involved, the sooner that happens.

Calling people liars only alienates them and makes yourself look bad. Name-calling is an act of desperation when you have no valid arguments to support your belief.

The explanation I prefer is that they are simply mistaken because they are missing part of the puzzle. The ancients believed that the sun went around the Earth, and that everything was a perfect circle. They drew circles within circles to try to get to the orbits they observed. It was not until Tycho Brahe that the orbits were properly described as elipses, and not until Newton that they had the math to describe them. They needed the missing pieces to get the orbits right.

So in the same way, they mistake the shape of the Earth because they are missing a piece of the puzzle. I don't know what that piece is. And honestly, it needs scientists to find it because raw speculation (as in Rowbotham) or Biblical apologetics, is not going to find it. Alienating scientists will only drive them away from the search and convince them that their present errors are correct.

The Earth is flat, and scientists are not trying to hide that fact: They are just missing a piece of the puzzle.

magellanclavichord,
did I understand it correct that you believe that what science is telling is commonly true and that NASA send men to the moon, however, on the same time you believe earth is flat? That's interesting. So... what do you think about the photographs from the moon showing the earth? Please don't get me wrong, I like your attitude and your explanations of gravity.

I am leaving work now but I'll answer in full later. I am delighted to find another flatist that doesn't believe in a conspiracy! You should look into my Relativistic Model.

The explanation I prefer is that they are simply mistaken because they are missing part of the puzzle.

I've been saying this for a decade, give or take.